Gatekeeping at Geophysical Research Letters

As the IPCC struggles with its inconvenient truth – the pause and the growing discrepancy between models and observations – the obvious question is: why is the IPCC just starting to grapple with this issue now, essentially two minutes before midnite of the release of the AR5?

…

My blog post on the Fyfe et al. paper triggered an email from Pat Michaels, who sent me a paper that he submitted in 2010 to Geophysical Research Letters, that did essentially the same analysis as Fyfe et al., albeit with the CMIP3 models.

Abstract. Assessing the consistency between short-term global temperature trends in observations and climate model projections is a challenging problem. While climate models capture many processes governing short-term climate fluctuations, they are not expected to simulate the specific timing of these somewhat random phenomena—the occurrence of which may impact the realized trend. Therefore, to assess model performance, we develop distributions of projected temperature trends from a collection of climate models running the IPCC A1B emissions scenario. We evaluate where observed trends of length 5 to 15 years fall within the distribution of model trends of the same length. We find that current trends lie near the lower limits of the model distributions, with cumulative probability-of-occurrence values typically between 5% and 20%, and probabilities below 5% not uncommon. Our results indicate cause for concern regarding the consistency between climate model projections and observed climate behavior under conditions of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions.

Drum roll . . . the paper was rejected. I read the paper (read it yourself), and I couldn’t see why it was rejected, particularly since it seems to be a pretty straightforward analysis that has been corroborated in subsequent published papers.

The rejection of this paper raised my watchdog hackles, and I asked to see the reviews. I suspected gatekeeping by the editor and bias against the skeptical authors by the editor and reviewers.

Leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.

Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted,
saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’
and they should focus on decades or centuries.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its tune after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years. Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was
exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat – and suggested using
1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.

The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming.
————————-
Taken from Daily Mail.

This is sad and shows the extent to which the bullying tactics of the people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) with regard to their attempts to control peer review and climate research extended. It appears that their successful efforts to have former GRL editor James Saiers fired, as detailed in the leaked emails, had a frightening impact.

I remember when Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) first started publishing papers related to climate. It was the among the first to address the cross-disciplinary nature of climatology, which previously was restricted to just a few climate and meteorological journals.

At the time there were very few journals publishing climate materials, especially historical and paleoclimate reconstructions. It was why the work of Reid Bryson and especially H H Lamb was so ground breaking. The major journal relatively newly on the scene was Stephen Schneider’s “Climate Change”.

I have been accused of not publishing in Nature or Science, but they were rarely publishing climate papers at the time when I was very active in publishing. I can speak about this with understanding because in two of my graduate level climate courses the students had to write articles and determine where they would submit them for publication. I wanted them to learn about the narrow and specialized focus of journals, as well as the procedures of editorial instructions. I also occasionally submitted papers to a journal to determine the limits of their acceptance and to get feedback from the editor or hopefully reviewers so I could adjust and increase potential for publication.

The behaviour of journals and especially their editors has been a disgraceful episode in their lack of objectivity essential to good science. There area variety of causes not least the taking over of journals by publishers. Profit became the driving force and sensational papers producing the prevailing political wisdom the hall mark for high sales. Of course, there was also the realization that control of editors was essential if you wanted to control the scientific method – something the CRU people did with frightening efficiency and effect. They also realized that even being editors themselves gave inordinate control. They could hide behind the secrecy of not disclosing reviewers to peer-review each others work. Donna Laframboise, author of two books on the corruption of the IPCC apparently identified this problem for the Journal of Climate.

The extent of the damage done by the CRU people and the IPCC is only gradually coming to light, but the few of us who watched the entire research area of climatology hijacked for a political agenda knew what was going on and were easily attacked and marginalized as skeptics and then deniers.

I must say in retrospect I would not resist again knowing the price paid, but I am beyond the point of no return. I am at the point where I realize there is no pleasure in “I told you so.” I am also at the point where I am afraid there will be no accountability for the damage done, the lives impacted and the money wasted. I write this after reading a headline about new EPA regulations shutting down coal plants throwing people out on an increasingly crowded street all based on the false science created by the CRU, the IPCC and the cowering editors of once fine journals.

[“There area variety of causes not least the taking over of journals by publishers… ” is intended to be? Mod]

That’s a sad tale you’ve had to live through, Tim. All you can do is make the dirt you know as public as possible – the public opinion “climate” is growing more amenable by the day.

No, there will be no accountability for the scamsters, for people like that spend their lives jumping from scam to scam, but there will most definitely be Consequences. One set of those consequences is quite amusing and profitable to me, personally, although I can’t say the same for the general public. Allow me to explain:

I make my living from the oil and gas exploration business, which of course is booming here in the US due to the fraccing revolution. (I was in the field for years, but it’s all legal/office work now) I also read that headline about EPA regulations killing coal plants, but I somehow doubt that people outside our industry realize how darkly amusing that is to us who are part of it. We are used to “oil and gas” always being vilified as the Big, Bad, Meanies of the energy world, while for so many years Coal has gotten a special pass, probably because so many good Union members make their living from it. (Oil and Gas is a notoriously non-unionized industry) Funny thing is, most of the greens are now lumping ALL energy producers together as “bad guys” without realizing that the Coal business and the O&G biz are made up of completely different players, for the most part, and in the states, we are all fighting over the same pie. Everything that cuts Coal usage INCREASES Oil and NatGas usage. (Especially NatGas!) That’s because, especially in electrical power generation, there are no realistic alternatives anymore. Nuclear construction is shut down – no more hydro-power plants are being built. (in fact they’re being torn down; look at what the enviros are saying about Hetch Hetchy) New wind installations are dying because they’re money losers, and solar was always a joke. (Geothermal? Have you heard anyone even mention that in years? All of the projects went broke, if you didn’t know) So, if you shut down coal, since oil is too expensive and too much in demand around the world, then Nat Gas is the only game in town. By Government DIktat, virtually EVERY now power plant built in the US for the next decade (if not the next 2 or 3) is going to be Nat Gas fired. Hooray for those of us in the biz – our future is now guaranteed, and it’s a darn good one!

Long story short, in spite of the fact that the greens have hated the oil and gas people from day one, today EVERY new regulation and requirement and regulation makes the oil and gas business richer, bigger, and more powerful every day. Because nobody is going to have anyplace left to turn for energy EXCEPT for what we sell! Thanks, Obama, you’ve guaranteed my and my families, and my friends future. Too bad about your voting public who isn’t going to be in on the benefits, and who are going to pay for all of this in needlessly inflated prices for the next 2 or 3 decades, at least, because there’s not going to be any competition. But that was your choice, not ours.

P.S. Now you know why Chesapeake Energy was making such big donations to the Sierra Club. Looks like money well spent, once you realize what the stakes really were.

“Leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.”

This is far from over. Even if we are on the way to the next glacial period before long global temperatures will surely rise. At which time Alarmist will have a field day. “See, we told you so! It’s worse than we thought.” What’s our plan then?

The fashion in witch execution varied by time & place. In 17th century America, they were hanged, but in Europe more often burned, like Joan of Arc in the 15th century, or drowned. The “ducking” stool could be used in their trials as well.

Gah, preview provided but not taken advantage of. I suck. Mods, would you delete prior post?

It’s sort of interesting when you dig into the story over there and at Lucia’s. As I understand it, someone named ‘Zwiers’ has submitted essentially the same thing and it was published. Even better, one of the hostile reviewers insisted that the uncertainty was being under-represented and that ‘Zwiers’ be called in to resolve the issue!

I thought it was neat to see the knee jerk response of some of the commenters:

Or maybe it involved dunking? Oh, perhaps a precursor to establishing who was or was not a …

Partial excerpt: Ordeal by water was associated with the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries: an accused who sank was considered innocent, while floating indicated witchcraft. These tests came to be part of what is known as the Salem Witch Trials. Some argued that witches floated because they had renounced baptism when entering the Devil’s service. King James VI of Scotland (later also James I of England) claimed in his Daemonologie that water was so pure an element that it repelled the guilty.

I wonder how many instances of burning for witchcraft it would take to convince you that this means of execution was the norm for most countries most of the time in the late Middle Ages & Early Modern periods? Please read all the cases in the link I provided. It should convince you.

On the connection between witchcraft & heresy, please see this case from 14th century Ireland:

After it became associated with satanism, witchcraft was heresy, so, as in Joan’s case, it was a distinction without a difference.

As for the Fordham link, you’ll note that it plainly calls her trial a witchcraft proceeding. If what you want is evidence that Henry V’s brother Bedford & the other English in France wanted to try her as a witch, there is this, among many other sources:

IIRC my 15th century history correctly, the Duke’s own wife was among the women who confirmed that Joan was a maid, hence under French law couldn’t be tried for witchcraft. So the English & their French & Burgundian stooges went for heresy.

albertalad says September 20, 2013 at 10:03 am, “Taken from the Daily Mail”.

Word to the Wise; I really wouldn’t bet my moderately good name on what I read in the Daily Mail.
————————–
LOl – I am an unashamed skeptic and in most circles these days I rate somewhere between a low down scum and a garden variety slug – or so I have been told, many times. Fox news also carried something similar as well –

20 people and 2 dogs were executed for the crime of witchcraft in Salem. One person was pressed to death under a pile of stones for refusing to testify….
…Massachusetts was experiencing some of the worst winters in memory.….

If it was thought that the public would not turn against them, ‘True Believers’ would love to treat deniers like witches. There have been a few trial balloons floated.

At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime….

Never make the mistake of thinking we are now too ‘Civilized’ for these types of ‘Witch-hunts’ Dr. Rummel’s studies leading to his books on DEMOCIDE: DEATH BY GOVERNMENT show we are just as vicious as ever with just a thin coating of civilization.

…Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5′, then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century….

…what is covered here? This book presents the primary results, tables, and figures, and most important, an historical sketch of the major cases of democide–those in which 1,000,000 or more people were killed by a regime. The first chapter is the summary and conclusion of this work on democide, and underlines the roles of democracy and power. ..

…After eight-years and almost daily reading and recording of men, women, and children by the tens of millions being tortured or beaten to death, hung, shot, and buried alive, burned or starved to death, stabbed or chopped into pieces, and murdered in all the other ways creative and imaginative human beings can devise, I have never been so happy to conclude a project. I have not found it easy to read time and time again about the horrors innocent people have been forced to suffer. What has kept me at this was the belief, as preliminary research seemed to suggest, that there was a positive solution to all this killing and a clear course of political action and policy to end it. And the results verify this. The problem is Power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.

albertalad says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:03 am“Leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.”

The pressure exerted by politicians from various nationalities to suppress an honest discussion of the 17 year long hiatus in global warming while CO2 continues to accumulate further illustrates the UN IPCC AR5 report is a political marketing tool, not a scientific report. Anyone who acquiesced to such political pressure is a tool as well.
MtK

“I wonder how many instances of burning for witchcraft it would take to convince you that this means of execution was the norm for most countries most of the time in the late Middle Ages & Early Modern periods?”

I don’t know for sure, but your not going to get there using wikipedia as a source.

If it doesn’t matter to you that Joan’s enemies considered her a witch & wanted her burnt alive for that offense, OK with me.

But the incontrovertible fact remains that tens of thousands of people were burnt to death for witchcraft in Europe, c. 1300 to 1800, probably more than by any other means of execution. America was unusual in hanging them to death.

How about clicking on every name linked burned person in the list, then noting at the bottom of each entry the actual sources? If you’re really interested in the topic, I can suggest some good books & academic papers.

What did they do to climate witches? Burnt or hung I don’t think they cared afterwards. :-(

Climatic Variability in Sixteenth-Century Europe and Its Social Dimension
Pfister, Christian; Brázdil, Rudolf; Glaser, Rüdiger (Eds.) 1999, VI, 351 p.
………..Results are compared to fluctuations of Alpine glaciers and to changes in the frequency of severe floods and coastal storms. Moreover, the impact of climate change on grain prices and wine production is assessed. Finally, it is convincingly argued that witches at that time were burnt as scapegoats for climatic change.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005585931899
————————-
THE WITCH TRIALS OF FINNMARK, NORTHERN NORWAY, DURING THE 17TH CENTURY
….Witches were burned (85 persons), hanged (three), killed in prison (two) or died of torture (two); only 22 persons were acquitted; the rest received lighter sentences of fines or imprisonment….http://absentis.org/ergotism/the_witch_trials_of_finnmark_norway.pdf

Inconvenient people were often accused of witchcraft, too, as an excuse to get rid of them or steal their property. The Fulda witch trials resulted from the local Prince Bishop Balthasar von Dernbach’s efforts to re-Catholicize his bishopric during the Counter-Reformation. About 250 innocent people were executed wrongly, mostly by burning.

Clearly climate witches should be hanged, then rapidly buried to sequester their carbon. Burning not only frees the victims’ carbon but creates excess black carbon & carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

Gail COmbs says September 20, 2013 at 12:17 pm
…
One of the reasons for the tens of thousands of pages of regulations in the USA with no right to a jury trial is that …

That statement is not quite true; while your first ‘level’ in contesting a ‘charge’ or citation is before an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) your final appeal (and a trial) will before a normal judge and jury.

Its one of the way AGW fanatics can their is no science that rejects ‘the cause ‘ is by having such gatekeepers that turn down such paper while pushing through any old rubbish if it supports ‘the cause ‘
In the long term such approaches are bad for science in general and its really very sad that the scientific establishments as kept its mouth shut or even supported these approaches. A feature we may all end up paying the price for .

As discussed previously, the IPCC are in a difficult position, made more of a dilema for them, by the fact that AR5, and its worth, will not be judged in 2013, when published, but rather in 2015 when the next climate conference takes place. This presents a dilema since no one knows what the temperatures will do over the course of the next couple of years.

If there is a positve ENSO event between now and 2015, then it is likely that temperatures will rise (if only short lived) and this would enable the IPCC to claim that the ‘hiatus’/’pause’ is over and that warming has recommenced. They will be able to argue that Santer’s 17 year period was never exceeded. So if you are a gambling man, there is a chance that things could pan out in your favour and, in this scenario, the IPCC would not be so embarrassed by the divergence between model projections and reality.

Of course, there may be no resumption of warming (as the Met Office predicts). In which case, by 2015, the 15 or so years without statistically significant warming will have become 17 or so years (on some data sets more than 20 years).

Of course, it is possible that between now and 2015, global temperatures will fall. If that is the case then things will look very bad as the divergence increases and the length of no statistically significant warming lengthens. In this sceario, there could even be a negative anomaly trend as from 2000, and quite likely as from 1998.

Added to all of this is that it is probable that there will be more papers published suggesting a lowering of climate sensitivity. This is almost inevitable if the ‘hiatus’/’pause’ continues.

So what does the IPCC do? Does it acknowledgge the ‘hiatus’/’pause’ and give it some significance, in effect acknowledging that past reports had exaggerated the warming (and thereby climate sensitivity)? or does it gamble hoping for a resumption of warming (most likely fueled by an ENSO event). If only IPCC and their models were better able to predict ENSO, it probably would be able to consider the odds and act accordingly.

Now added to this dilema is that the IPCC is an inter-governmental body dancing to the tune of its pupet masters, the politicians. Reading between the lines (from the Daily Mail report referred to above), it appears that many governments wanted the IPCC to not address the ‘hiatus’/’pause’, to cover it up and for it to not affect its reasoning and summary (no doubt for their own political purposes tax schemes etc). However, more recently some other governments want the ‘hiatus’/’pause to be specifically addressed and explained. That has of course caused extreme difficulties for the IPCC and no doubt this explains why this issue is only being addressed at this late stage, just days before publication.

I think that it is reasonably safe to conclude that had it not been for a few governments wanting the ‘hiatus’/’pause’ to be specifically and patently addressed, the IPCC would have substantially ignored it and carried on with business as usual.

That statement is not quite true; while your first ‘level’ in contesting a ‘charge’ or citation is before an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) your final appeal (and a trial) will before a normal judge and jury.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry _Jim, I thought that too but the Supreme Court does not agree.

….The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.…link

milodonharlani says September 20, 2013 at 12:49 pm
…
At least DeLay wasn’t beheaded, strangled, drowned, burned or hanged, so he survived to be vindicated.

With 12 million spent on legal fees (never mind the other factors like the stress on a marriage, ‘quality of life’, etc.)? I’d say he was … a simple ‘ducking’ wouldn’t take near a decade or cost 12 MM …

“Joan of Arc is not a counter example to my claim. Yes she was burned at the stake, but it was for being a heretic, not for being a witch.”

Well, let’s be clear, she was burned for humiliating the English in battle. They couldn’t beat her in open combat, so the only way they could get rid of her was to pay the Burgundians to dishonorably capture her and then pay an even bigger amount so they could put her out of commission permanently themselves. (The Burgundians didn’t like her, but even they wouldn’t dare to harm her). It was a disgrace under the laws of England, the laws of France, the laws of War, and the Laws of the Church, even by the low medieval standards of the day.

There was actually *no* evidence, even under medieval standards, of witchcraft or heresy presented at her trial. Her trial was a dirty, shameful, business, which is why twenty-five years after her execution, an inquisitorial court authorized by Pope Callixtus III examined the trial, pronounced her innocent, and declared her a martyr.

Her intellect was much greater than that of her accuser’s; at one point they asked her a question which, under the accepted theology of the day was a verbal minefield, designed to force the accused to give a heretical answer, since either a “yes” or a “no” was damning. Joan effortlessly made mincemeat of the question, and of the questioner: “Asked if she knew she was in God’s grace, she answered: ‘If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.'”

They never found anything more damning than that to condemn her, and yet condemn her they did. Then, as now, Hatred knows no bounds.

[Reply: Absolutely correct. Joan d’Arc apparently had second sight, which enabled her to destroy her opponents in battle. This is a matter of historical record. She stood far above her adversaries, who were a collection of louts; much like the purveyors of the CAGW narrative in modern day political global warming shenanigans. But history has a way of sifting the truth from the lies… ~mod.]

I don’t approve of witch trials (which those of Communist agents weren’t, regardless of Arthur Miller’s opinion), & would agree that DeLay’s experience amounted to a form of torture or at least non-lethal “ducking”.

o Once an Administrative Law Judge has issued a decision, that decision can usually be appealed to a higher entity within the agency.

o Those appealing an agency decision must usually exhaust agency remedies before moving the action to a federal court.

o The final agency decision can usually be appealed
– to a federal court of appeals if Congress has provided an appeals process
– to the federal district court if no provision for appeal has been specified

Some French clerics were dubious about the inquiry, since it would reveal their own complicity in the English-Burgundian plot, but the hearing managed to skirt that thorny issue. Others were concerned that it might find that Charles had in fact won his throne with the aid of heresy or sorcery. Luckily at least one powerful archbishop supported her mom’s plea for a retrial.

The Michaels et al paper was a paper about weather. Trends of five to fifteen years, which after the La Nina of 2008/9 had reached a low point. So they could draw a graph like this, based on data to end 2009. And say things like“For most observational datasets of global average temperature, the trends from length 5 to 15 years lie along the lower tails of the probability distributions from the collection of climate model projections under the SRES A1B emissions scenario. “

But the problem with writing about the weather is that the weather changes. On cue came El Nino and some very warm months and all the trends went up, and those statements were no longer true. This was obvious by the time of Chip’s talk at the Heartland conference, and I commented on it at the time.

Timing was a fatal problem. If you’re trying to publish a paper where the data is essentially observational on how cold it’s getting, and everyone is talking about how warm it’s getting, then you don’t need to hypothesise a sceptic gatekeeper to explain the difficulty.

wws says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:34 am
<>
ABSOFECKINGLUTELY CORRECT. I just wish more layfolk realised this ! Greenpeace and the Government entrenched Tree-hugger Gangs have helped to make oil and gas the most sought after commodity and put billions ‘in the bank’ for these companies.
At one time a good few years ago, I even pondered whether Greenpeace were actively funded by by Big Oil – they certainly do Big Oil no actual harm by their activities!

…Timing was a fatal problem. If you’re trying to publish a paper where the data is essentially observational on how cold it’s getting, and everyone is talking about how warm it’s getting, then you don’t need to hypothesise a sceptic gatekeeper to explain the difficulty.

In which case it’s quite strange that Lucia says this about the problem the reviewers had:

Now, she does indeed appear to confirm what you are saying about the circumstances changing when she talks about the decision to wait to resubmit in some other comment (I think on the Blackboard actually), but clearly she doesn’t believe a change in the weather had anything to do with the objections raised by the reviewers.

It seems there were two submissions – the first got a mixed response and the second, after revisions with James Annan joining, had all four referees against. The latter must have been some months after end 2009, which was the end of data.

The objections seem to have been on the validity of the significance tests. Now statistical significance is supposed to be what enables you to say something that won’t be invalidated by future chance happenings. So it’s a lot harder to defend if four months later, the picture does look a lot different.

…
…The objections seem to have been on the validity of the significance tests. Now statistical significance is supposed to be what enables you to say something that won’t be invalidated by future chance happenings. So it’s a lot harder to defend if four months later, the picture does look a lot different.”

Nick: So you’re contending that Lucia, along with Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, John R. Christy, Chad S. Herman, James D. Annan failed to fully flesh out and update their statistics?

Though they interest Dr. Curry discrepencies, if any, between projected and observed global temperatures are not actually pertinent to the needs of a maker of policy on CO2 emissions. A policy maker needs to know whether there are discrepencies between the predicted and observed relative frequencies of the outcomes of events. Global warming climatology cannot, however, present such a comparison for the set of events underlying the general circulation models is empty..

Mark Bofill says: September 20, 2013 at 5:03 pm
“Is she mistaken in your view about what she’s saying about the rejection here?”

It’s not clear to me what paper she’s referring to. The only paper in 2013 of which Zwiers is lead author is this paywalled one. But it is far more comprehensive and ambitious. A better candidate might be the one by Fyfe et al, recently discussed at WUWT. Again paywalled, but seems to have done much more in analyzing th reasons for the discrepancy, rather than simply noting them.

But note the complaint: ” Zwiers published almost essentially the same thing but at a point in the cycle where the rejection is less obvious that at the time we were submitting”
They were keeping their paper for a rainy day, and it’s unfair that Z got published before the rain started. If there’s a statistically significant discrepancy, you don’t have to wait for a rainy day.

ATheoK says: September 20, 2013 at 5:39 pm
“Nick: So you’re contending that Lucia, along with Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, John R. Christy, Chad S. Herman, James D. Annan failed to fully flesh out and update their statistics?”

I’m applying what you folks say you favor – the test of results. They have used statistical significance tests which are supposed to show results are robust, but four months later they are different.

They were keeping their paper for a rainy day, and it’s unfair that Z got published before the rain started. If there’s a statistically significant discrepancy, you don’t have to wait for a rainy day.

No, this misses my point.

Look Nick, to cut to the chase, you appear to have commented to try to represent the reason for rejection as a change in the weather rather than gate keeping. Admittedly taking Lucia at her word (something I’m quite comfortable doing, frankly), Z got essentially the same thing published under less favourable weather / statistical conditions, so dismissing the charge of gate keeping on this basis doesn’t seem particularly compelling to me.

I do congratulate you however on finding a spin to apply to the discussion that avoids the real significance of the issue associated with these discussion, which is of course the failure of the model results to match the temperature observations of the past decade and a half. It’s nothing less than I’ve come to expect from your posts.

I’m applying what you folks say you favor – the test of results. They have used statistical significance tests which are supposed to show results are robust, but four months later they are different.

I know you know enough math to make this statement a deliberate misrepresentation. You understand Lucia’s argument about the statistical power of a test. Results flickering back and forth between accept and reject are nothing unusual or disturbing as time goes on and the power of the test increases.

The events underlying the climate models do not exist. Probabilities are defined on events. Thus, there are no probabilities. With the absence of events and probabilities there is no mathematical statistics. Thus, we can’t actually make sense of the data on global warming and CO2 emissions. Don’t you agree?

It’s been a long day, and I’m going to freely admit that I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. I see that your name links to an interesting looking blog that looks like it might be pertinent, and I’ll certainly take a look tomorrow and get back to you on your question then. Thanks.

Mark Bofill says: September 20, 2013 at 6:42 pm
“Look Nick, to cut to the chase, you appear to have commented to try to represent the reason for rejection as a change in the weather rather than gate keeping.
….
I do congratulate you however on finding a spin to apply”

I’ve simply pointed to posts that I wrote in May 2010, long before we knew of any rejection.

“Results flickering back and forth between accept and reject are nothing unusual or disturbing as time goes on…”

Well, I can understand GRL being unenthusiastic about publishing a paper which says “Today, our tests say reject…”; even more so if it should say “well, today it says accept, but when we submitted…”

[. . .] Global warming climatology cannot, however, present such a comparison for the set of events underlying the general circulation models is empty..

And

Terry Oldberg on September 20, 2013 at 7:13 pm

@Mark Bofill:

The events underlying the climate models do not exist. Probabilities are defined on events. Thus, there are no probabilities. With the absence of events and probabilities there is no mathematical statistics. Thus, we can’t actually make sense of the data on global warming and CO2 emissions. Don’t you agree?

– – – – – – – –

Terry Oldberg,

Your comment is interesting enough.

The term climate ‘events’, which you imply if existent would support mathematical statistics, is categorically unspecified.

Here is an interesting exchange between posters at the Guardian. AGW nuts have a persistent cry of “deniers” being funded by “big oil” or “big business” or some other corporate interests without ever explaining why or how such enormous firms would bother paying any sceptic for anything when they have their own vast PR. machines staffed with highly-trained professionals able to do a much better job for themselves…

Scientists put together a document based on years of rigorous research and analysis for no remuneration while deniers are funded directly by big oil. Even the someone with the most tenuous grasp on sanity must see where the truth is.

Which scientists are carrying out years of research without payment? Please name them. And while you’re at it please name the sceptics funded by “big oil” and the amount they receive. Real figures please, not just your imagination.
By the way, do you really think that your scientists do not chase after money from oil companies to fund their research? Please see below:

Hi Pinar – it was great to hear that you were coming to UA, and that you were interested in meeting with this Overpeck guy. I was just in Alaska and ran into Stan Foo in the airport (first time I’ve seen him since Hamilton days), and ditto for Greg Maynard at GSA. Both are doing very well in the minerals side of things. And now you… wonderful.

Bad news is that I’m on sabbatical (actually, this is nice for me and my family that includes two young boys). Moreover, wife (and UA prof) Julie Cole is enroute to Germany for up to a month (! – yes, my fraternity experience should come in helpful as I single-parent two boys). This means, unfortunately, that I can’t fly down to be on campus for your visit. I’m really sorry about this.

However, maybe there is a way to move things forward anyhow?

In addition to seeing and catching up w/ you, I’m also quite intrigued by what Exxon- Mobil and the University of Arizona could do together on the climate change front. As you’ve probably figured out, we have one of the top universities in this area, and lots of capability, both in understanding climate change at the global scale down to the regional scale, but also in terms of understanding how climate variability and change impacts society, and also how interdisciplinary climate knowledge can be used to support improved decision-making in society. On these two latter fronts, UA is arguably the best in the nation.

Perhaps we should talk on the phone and figure out what would be best for your UA visit. I could then help line up a mtg for you w/ the relevant people (including Joaquin Ruiz, who is very interested in climate-related activities), and I could also try to be on a phone link w/ this meeting. After Julie gets back from Germany in mid-March, I would be happy to fly down to Texas to meet with you and your colleagues face-to-face. I’d certainly like that instead of just hearing your voice on a phone. So, would you like to chat on the phone next week? Monday is looking tough w/ visitors and a big deadline, Tues a bit better, and Wed-Friday pretty much wide open.

In response to Terry Oldberg having yet again posted his illogical and obscurantist gobbledygook, at September 20, 2013 at 7:18 pm Mark Bofill replied to him saying

It’s been a long day, and I’m going to freely admit that I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. I see that your name links to an interesting looking blog that looks like it might be pertinent, and I’ll certainly take a look tomorrow and get back to you on your question then. Thanks

That could have ended Oldberg disrupting this thread. Unfortunately, on two other threads John Whitman has acted – in one case completely successfully – solely to disrupt the thread, and at September 21, 2013 at 1:03 am he here wrote

Terry Oldberg,
Your comment is interesting enough.
The term climate ‘events’, which you imply if existent would support mathematical statistics, is categorically unspecified.
Please given some categorical context of ‘events’.

. So, I write to translate Oldberg’s posts in hope of avoiding this thread being destroyed by Oldberg twaddle encouraged by Whitman disruption.

At September 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm Terry Oldberg says:

Though they interest Dr. Curry discrepencies, if any, between projected and observed global temperatures are not actually pertinent to the needs of a maker of policy on CO2 emissions. A policy maker needs to know whether there are discrepencies between the predicted and observed relative frequencies of the outcomes of events. Global warming climatology cannot, however, present such a comparison for the set of events underlying the general circulation models is empty.

Translation
‘Though they are obfuscated by Terry Oldberg discrepencies, if any, between projected and observed global temperatures are extremely important to the needs of a maker of policy on CO2 emissions. A policy maker needs to know whether there are discrepencies between the predicted and observed outcomes of events. Global warming climatology uses general circulation models to provide the projections and predictions, Terry Oldberg cannot, however, understand .such a comparison for the set of brain cells in his skull is deficient.’

At September 20, 2013 at 7:13 pm Terry Oldberg says:

Mark Bofill:
The events underlying the climate models do not exist. Probabilities are defined on events. Thus, there are no probabilities. With the absence of events and probabilities there is no mathematical statistics. Thus, we can’t actually make sense of the data on global warming and CO2 emissions. Don’t you agree?

Translation
Mark Bofill:
The events underlying the climate models are not understood by Terry Oldberg. Probabilities are defined on events. Thus, Terry Oldberg doesn’t have a clue what he is waffling about. With the absence of adequate understanding there is only nonsense from Terry Oldberg. Thus, we can’t actually make sense of anything he says/i>. Don’t you agree that Terry Oldberg has managed to make his ignorance, lack of intelligence and stupidity seem meaningful by use of obfuscations?’

In the course of your extended bloviation you failed yet again to identify the events underlying the IPCC climate models. Are you dancing around this issue because you don’t know what they are? If so, you may be on the verge of enlightenment. Hint: temperatures are not events but rather are outcomes. By the way, are you aware of the fact that character assassination is illegal under the defamation laws of the UK and the US?

In response to Terry Oldberg having yet again posted his illogical and obscurantist gobbledygook, at September 20, 2013 at 7:18 pm Mark Bofill replied to him saying

It’s been a long day, and I’m going to freely admit that I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. I see that your name links to an interesting looking blog that looks like it might be pertinent, and I’ll certainly take a look tomorrow and get back to you on your question then. Thanks

That could have ended Oldberg disrupting this thread. Unfortunately, on two other threads John Whitman has acted – in one case completely successfully – solely to disrupt the thread, and at September 21, 2013 at 1:03 am he here wrote

Terry Oldberg,
Your comment is interesting enough.
The term climate ‘events’, which you imply if existent would support mathematical statistics, is categorically unspecified.
Please given some categorical context of ‘events’.

. So, I write to translate Oldberg’s posts in hope of avoiding this thread being destroyed by Oldberg twaddle encouraged by Whitman disruption.

At September 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm Terry Oldberg says:

Though they interest Dr. Curry discrepencies, if any, between projected and observed global temperatures are not actually pertinent to the needs of a maker of policy on CO2 emissions. A policy maker needs to know whether there are discrepencies between the predicted and observed relative frequencies of the outcomes of events. Global warming climatology cannot, however, present such a comparison for the set of events underlying the general circulation models is empty.

Translation
‘Though they are obfuscated by Terry Oldberg discrepencies, if any, between projected and observed global temperatures are extremely important to the needs of a maker of policy on CO2 emissions. A policy maker needs to know whether there are discrepencies between the predicted and observed outcomes of events. Global warming climatology uses general circulation models to provide the projections and predictions, Terry Oldberg cannot, however, understand .such a comparison for the set of brain cells in his skull is deficient.’

At September 20, 2013 at 7:13 pm Terry Oldberg says:

Mark Bofill:
The events underlying the climate models do not exist. Probabilities are defined on events. Thus, there are no probabilities. With the absence of events and probabilities there is no mathematical statistics. Thus, we can’t actually make sense of the data on global warming and CO2 emissions. Don’t you agree?

Translation
Mark Bofill:
The events underlying the climate models are not understood by Terry Oldberg. Probabilities are defined on events. Thus, Terry Oldberg doesn’t have a clue what he is waffling about. With the absence of adequate understanding there is only nonsense from Terry Oldberg. Thus, we can’t actually make sense of anything he says/i>. Don’t you agree that Terry Oldberg has managed to make his ignorance, lack of intelligence and stupidity seem meaningful by use of obfuscations?’

Richard

– – – – – – –

richardscourtney.

Thanks for your comment. These themes of yours are always instructive of human nature. I do appreciate them.

Persistence . . .

Let me see, that is the fourth time on four separate threads within ~ the last week or so that you have preemptively and actively engaged in disruption of my attempts at dialog with 3 different individuals.

After more than 1,000 comments within the last 5 years on WUWT, for the very first time I have the following observation:

The ambiance and hospitality of Anthony’s WUWT house is lessoned somewhat of late.

Let me see, that is the fourth time on four separate threads within ~ the last week or so that you have preemptively and actively engaged in disruption of my attempts at dialog with 3 different individuals.

No. This was an attempt to stop Terry Oldberg yet again disrupting a thread with his drivel.

But I have attempted to stop your thread destruction on three previous threads.

As I told you in one of the cases where I attempted to stop your encouragement of thread destruction, if you honestly want to read Oldberg twaddle then search WUWT for the several threads where he has been engaged – and refuted – by rgb@duke, Lord Moncton, me, and etc.. And if you want to “engage ” with him then you can do it elsewhere.

Your collaboration in the total destruction of the ‘dustbin’ thread was despicable.

I have answered you and give notice to all that I refuse to “engage” with you such as to enable your disruption of this thread.

Let me see, that is the fourth time on four separate threads within ~ the last week or so that you have preemptively and actively engaged in disruption of my attempts at dialog with 3 different individuals.

No. This was an attempt to stop Terry Oldberg yet again disrupting a thread with his drivel.

But I have attempted to stop your thread destruction on three previous threads.

As I told you in one of the cases where I attempted to stop your encouragement of thread destruction, if you honestly want to read Oldberg twaddle then search WUWT for the several threads where he has been engaged – and refuted – by rgb@duke, Lord Moncton, me, and etc.. And if you want to “engage ” with him then you can do it elsewhere.

Your collaboration in the total destruction of the ‘dustbin’ thread was despicable.

I have answered you and give notice to all that I refuse to “engage” with you such as to enable your disruption of this thread.

Richard

– – – – – – – –

richardscourtney,

Thanks again for extending our engagement. It simply refreshes, on my part anyway.

You disagree with people, therefore you purposely interfere with them trying to have dialogs. I clearly understand that especially in the last week or so.

Yet that kind of activity on your part will never silence people with a reasonably well developed self-confidence. It only works on the timid. There is a relatively high scarcity of timid people @ WUWT. Certainly those activities of yours will not in the least discourage me.

Try a different strategy perhaps, like encouraging open discussion. If I am not mistaken, that is the spirit of this venue.

Anybody who has seen my posts on WUWT knows I welcome dialogue and despise trolls. Assertions from trolls to the contrary are only ‘red herrings’ suspended to obtain ‘bites’ in hope of deflecting a thread.

re: the vaulted theory of whether or not models can be put to the null hypothesis test. There are two kinds of people that often engage in a game of fallacious debate. Those that have convinced themselves they are right, and those that have convinced themselves that others are wrong. What boggles the mind is that it occurs here on a blog that values skepticism.

A paper that was attempting to be published about how the trends were significantly cooling when the politicians we fear-mongering about warming being out of control… gets sacked by the gate keepers who are beholden to the politicians…. What could go wrong here…

The number of pure believers over on Judith’s site is amazing. Lots of belittling and denier claims, and all from the faithful AGW believers touting disproven science (or should I say pseudo-science?) …

A paper that was attempting to be published about how the trends were significantly cooling when the politicians we fear-mongering about warming being out of control… gets sacked by the gate keepers who are beholden to the politicians…. What could go wrong here…

Proof positive of that publication’s non-scientific stance..

Yes! Indeed so.

As Tim Ball said in his above post at September 20, 2013 at 10:04 am

This is sad and shows the extent to which the bullying tactics of the people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) with regard to their attempts to control peer review and climate research extended. It appears that their successful efforts to have former GRL editor James Saiers fired, as detailed in the leaked emails, had a frightening impact.

The issue of corruption of the peer review process goes the the heart of the damage done to all science by so-called ‘climate science’.

One of the most beautiful things about logic is that when done elegantly, one can substitute examples from other disciplines and run the logic to see if it still holds true. It is the supreme test of fallacious versus elegant debate tactics and is an excellent form of rebuttal.

Models are used in many other disciplines to mathematically mechanize observed phenomenon. And then tested again and again against new observations of the same phenomenon to see which ones adequately used the engineered mechanisms to mimic the actual mechanisms of new observations. Viewed in this way, the null hypothesis is that models will not mimic observations. Controlled tests are completed and data taken. The results will either 1) demonstrate that the engineered mechanisms do mimic the mechanisms of new observations thus rejecting the null hypothesis, or 2) the null hypothesis will be retained, models are not adequately engineered to mimic the apparently still not understood mechanisms of observed phenomenon. To be sure, model and observation correlation still does not equate to causation. But it is a step in the right direction if the model continues to mimic new observations.

The opponents of the current issue that seems to crop up in every thread are arguing over semantics, a side issue, and thus entwined in sidetracked debate that cannot decide the central issue. This form of debate nearly always ends in a stalemate.

Models are used in many other disciplines to mathematically mechanize observed phenomenon. And then tested again and again against new observations of the same phenomenon to see which ones adequately used the engineered mechanisms to mimic the actual mechanisms of new observations. Viewed in this way, the null hypothesis is that models will not mimic observations. Controlled tests are completed and data taken. The results will either 1) demonstrate that the engineered mechanisms do mimic the mechanisms of new observations thus rejecting the null hypothesis, or 2) the null hypothesis will be retained, models are not adequately engineered to mimic the apparently still not understood mechanisms of observed phenomenon. To be sure, model and observation correlation still does not equate to causation. But it is a step in the right direction if the model continues to mimic new observations.

[. . .]

– – – – – – – –

Pamela Gray,

Thanks for your clearly stated essay.

The climate science researchers that have pursued GCMs for +20 years made a guess that the Earth-Atmosphere System (EAS) can be reasonably modeled for the purpose of generally describing climate realizations in the future.

I have yet to see any evidence of even moderately reasonable due diligence by model enthusiasts prior to embarking on the model quest as to whether the nature of the Earth-Atmosphere precludes modelability (is that even a real word?) per se.

This thread is about “Gatekeeping at Geophysical Research Letters” (GRL).

It also has relevance to differences between the paper by Michaels et al. which GRL rejected and the later paper by Fyfe et al. which GRL accepted and published.

Asserted semantic differences between “projections”, “predictions” and events are totally irrelevant. And so are considerations of what climate modellers may or may not have considered decades ago. Introduction of these irrelevances are pure trolling intended to deflect the thread.

Thankyou. I appreciate your kindness.
But there is a much more important issue here than my feelings.

Those of us who normally inhabit WUWT do so to learn. We exchange and debate ideas. Thus, we each learn especially when we discover that something we thought we knew was wrong.

But trolls operate with the deliberate intention of inhibiting or – if they can – preventing learning.
This they achieve by side-tracking a thread from its subject. The side-tracking has two effects
(a) those interested in the subject abandon the thread so discussion of the subject is curtailed
and
(b) those using the WUWT Search facility to find information are inhibited in finding what they want because threads don’t fully examine a subject.

Hence, it is important for trolling to be pointed out when it occurs in a thread so nobody is encouraged to feed the trolls.

John, the history of climate modeling is many decades long and a fascinating read! There has been plenty of work with very good examples of well-done pieces. I think work continues for several reasons. More than a few do so because it is a complex hard to model problem. And who wouldn’t want to be the one to discover the magic mix?!?!? While there are others who simply ride the anthropogenic CO2 gravy train I can easily dismiss them because, yes, my glass is always more than half full.

“Results flickering back and forth between accept and reject are nothing unusual or disturbing as time goes on…”

Well, I can understand GRL being unenthusiastic about publishing a paper which says “Today, our tests say reject…”; even more so if it should say “well, today it says accept, but when we submitted…”

You know, I’d probably have let this go if you hadn’t butchered my quote by omission.

I’m not explaining this to you Nick, because I expect you understand this better than I do. But in case anyone is puzzled, let me clarify.

Let’s say we’ve got a model that predicts a coin is weighted and will flip heads 66% of the time. For whatever reason we decide to accept this as our null hypothesis; in other words, this is what we will believe unless the tests prove otherwise.

We flip it, it comes up tails. We flip it again, it comes up tails again. So what? It doesn’t prove anything because the odds are still quite substantial with this small set of trials that this result could happen by chance if the null hypothesis is correct. It takes a certain minimum number of trials before the probability of not observing a trend by chance becomes significant.

Eventually, we have enough trials that we begin to reach significant confidence that the null hypothesis is incorrect, and that the coin is not flipping heads 66% of the time. When we first start reaching this result, subsequent flips of the coin can drag us back under the 95% confidence level relatively easily. This is what Nick is complaining about. The uncertainty Nick is trying to play up is due to the fact that we are just reaching the point where we have enough data to say the null hypothesis is invalid and that the models are falsified with statistical confidence. There’s no problem with the tests or methodology, the only problem is that we are just now reaching the point where we have enough observations to give us the confidence we normally associate with statistical certainty that the models are invalid.

I don’t know what Nick hopes to accomplish by playing this game, because at best this is a delaying tactic. It’s a way to pretend the tests falsifying the models are weak, rather than dwelling on the glaring point that the models are right on the hairy edge of being conclusively invalidated. We’ll reach the point soon enough that the ‘flicker’ will stop and the models will be falsified regardless of subsequent observations.

the models are right on the hairy edge of being conclusively invalidated.

The paper by Michaels et al.(2101) was rejected by GRL it seems on spurious grounds concerning its statistical analysis. It predated the time when the models are “conclusively invalidated”.

The later paper by Fyfe et al.(2013) which GRL accepted and published used similar statistical analysis to obtain a similar result to the paper of Michaels et al.. And the paper of Fyfe et al.also predates the time when the models are “conclusively invalidated”.

Whether or not Nick Stokes were right, then there is a clear bias in the publishing criteria adopted by GRL. Clearly, WHO publishes and not WHAT is submitted is being adopted as a publication criterion.

It will soon be known if the models are – or are not – “conclusively invalidated” and in either case additional papers discussing that result can be anticipated. The blatant ‘gate keeping’ which has happened needs to be examined and publicised before the time when those papers can be written.

John, I like this one about the history of climate models but there are others out there. You can imagine the back story related to this. It is a dog eat dog environment that is as territorial as any pitbull. Too bad we don’t get that side of the story.

Whether or not Nick Stokes were right, then there is a clear bias in the publishing criteria adopted by GRL. Clearly, WHO publishes and not WHAT is submitted is being adopted as a publication criterion.

I tried to make the point earlier that certain commenters seemed to blindly be making the same mistake as the reviewers with their various ‘shoot from the hip’ criticisms of the paper, but probably I expressed it poorly. But what else should we expect from the reviewers, who after all are possibly merely a subset of the population also represented by commenters, who exhibit the same behavior? Still, it’s a little ironic.
Best regards sir.

John, I like this one about the history of climate models but there are others out there. You can imagine the back story related to this. It is a dog eat dog environment that is as territorial as any pitbull. Too bad we don’t get that side of the story.

Well, it seems like ‘skeptical’ papers require a larger number of reviewers (2-3 is typical), especially after one of the original reviewers ‘defects’ and ends up as a coauthor on the paper. I’ve gone through the reviews and discussed them with Michaels and Knappenberger, and we’ve agreed on the following summary of the second round of reviews:

[. . .]

And

JC message to James Annan: kudos, and thank you.

– – – – – – – – –

First, I found very noteworthy that Judith Curry closed her post on GRL’s rejection of Michaels et al paper with a heartfelt thanks to Annan, across the perceived skeptic chasm. She shows one can interact with those who you may have current disagreements without name calling and rude behavior that is seen all too often. We can all learn from her example.

Second, the anonymity of reviewers begs the kind of gate keeping (skeptic filtering) behavior Judith investigates and that we have seen in CG1 & CG2. If reviewers knew their reviews and names would eventually be made public after the decision to publish a paper or not, then It would be less likely for there to be systematic long term gate keeping.

I have advocated a journal just for reviews, for the very purpose you mention. If reviews were public, papers would improve, the reviews would improve, and we would all benefit from transparent science.

I think you’re missing my point here. It isn’t whether the statistical situation is correctly described; it’s whether the result is interesting enough to be publishable. If you can say that models and weather have definitely diverged, then fine. But if you can only say, we’re in the zone where maybe yes, maybe not, then it would be natural for an editor to say, come back when it’s clearer.

And if the weather has turned in a way to undermine the case for yes, it’s much harder again. Lucia effectively admitted this. The usual response to a rejection is to submit elsewhere. But she said that they should keep the ms until the evidence was more favorable, and it seems they did.

While Nick and I have not seen eye to eye on many climate issues, on publishing your work he is pretty accurate. If it bleeds it leads, even in science. Fortunately, we are awash in journals. Keep submitting or hold on to it for a later submission. There isn’t anything particularly evil about it. It just is what it is. Journal employees have to eat. And they eat when people subscribe to the journal. Does it suck? Yep. So be prepared to be injured in climate science publications.

To cross the t’s and dot the i’s, I expect you are correct about the second submission. There is no question of gate keeping in the case of the second submission. I don’t think this is disputed by anyone, and I’m not disputing it here.

Talking about the first submission, Lucia says:

As for what reviewers seemed to not like: They seemed to not like the result. One reviewer suggested there must be some extra uncertainty we weren’t accounting for and that we could call in Zwiers to settle the argument about this extra uncertainty. Now in 2013– 3 years after we wrote our paper, this extra uncertainty happens not to be included in a paper whose co-author is Zwiers (as it should not be included because including it would be double counting.)

Furthermore, she says :Zwiers published almost essentially the same thing but at a point in the cycle where the rejection is less obvious that at the time we were submitting.

The problem here had nothing to do with an editor saying come back when it’s clearer. It apparently was not clearer when the paper Z coauthored was published.

You’re correct that I got sidetracked off of your main point. This happened because it doesn’t bug me that we disagree about the gate keeping. It bugs me that you offer arguments about the statistics that you know perfectly well are so misleading that they might as well be false. I mean really Nick; the flicker between accept and reject involved is entirely due to our arbitrary convention about what level of confidence we call certainty. But knowing as you do how this stuff works, you pretend that hitting 95% confidence and then dropping back to 93.2% confidence (or whatever the numbers were) means something. It’s something warmists often complain about skeptics doing; people start saying things like ‘Merchants of Doubt’ when the skeptic side uses tactics like this for some reason. Yet here you are, using the same tactics. Yeah, it bugs me, but I guess that’s my problem. I just don’t understand why somebody with your obvious intelligence and education indulges in crap like that.

Mark Bofill says: September 21, 2013 at 3:39 pm
“It bugs me that you offer arguments about the statistics that you know perfectly well are so misleading that they might as well be false.”

Which are they? I simply said that a reviewer who sees something asserted as true within statistical significance, when at the time he looks at it it is not true, might have justifiable doubts about whether it should be published.

But this is misleading:“It apparently was not clearer when the paper Z coauthored was published.”

People have been asserting over and over that The Zwiers paper was just the same. But I can’t see ant evidence that they have read it (there are no links). And it’s not at all true.

Firstly Fyfe et al were looking at CMIP5, not CMIP3. The trends, and discrepancy, are greater. So yes, it’s clearer for that reason.But secondly, they don’t do the same analysis at all. Fyfe et al is a much more sophisticated paper.

My main statistical objection to the original study was that it tested observed weather against bounds calculated from model results. This is an obvious failing, and I expect was the basis for some of the referee comments. I raised it with James Annan, who said that they supposed that variability of models and weather would be the same, but gave no evidence that it was. In fact, CMIP3 generation models were well understood to not reproduce well sources of variation like ENSO.

Fyfe et al tested against bounds derived from HADCRUT 4 realizations, which is not subject to that objection.

Now statistical significance is supposed to be what enables you to say something that won’t be invalidated by future chance happenings. So it’s a lot harder to defend if four months later, the picture does look a lot different.

And here:

I’m applying what you folks say you favor – the test of results. They have used statistical significance tests which are supposed to show results are robust, but four months later they are different.

Please note that I did not claim your statements were false, but that they were so misleading that they might as well be false.

We can dance to this tune all night Nick, but I’m sure it’s getting just as stale for everyone reading as it is for you and me. If you don’t want to admit that it’s misleading to offer stuff like this without explaining why this is the case, I can’t force you to do so.

People have been asserting over and over that The Zwiers paper was just the same. But I can’t see ant evidence that they have read it (there are no links). And it’s not at all true.

I stated earlier that I was taking Lucia at her word in this regard. I haven’t read the Zwiers paper. On this and the subsequent point you raise I’m not competent to try to refute you; I can’t call, so I fold.

“As the IPCC struggles with its inconvenient truth – the pause and the growing discrepancy between models and observations – the obvious question is: why is the IPCC just starting to grapple with this issue now, essentially two minutes before midnite of the release of the AR5?”

{bold emphasis by me-JW}

– – – – – – –

Why? My most favorite of all questions.

The crisis at the IPCC related to AR5, that is sufficiently traumatic to themselves that they procrastinated until it is too late to deal with it, is not the problematic climate models. Their AR5 crisis is not the potential for falsification of the models. Look at the history of climate models from the 1960s until now. Modeling efforts are still viewed as principally just a long term work in progress; a work in progress is not a crisis for them.

For the IPCC the AR5 crisis is in their own lack of confidence in continuing to sell fossil fuel alarm due to their self imposed isolation from independent, open and transparent dialog. Their crisis is they do not know how to engage with the broader community that includes skeptics; with skeptics that have succeeded spectacularly in engaging and communicating well with everyone.

The models only pose an interesting dilemma scientifically, but the AR5 crisis is its inability to handle criticism because of the IPCC’s self-imposed isolationism.